What Is Disruptive Innovation?

The first step of my plan to better connect NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators is 2nd steprecruiting more people for a core team to work on this worthwhile goal. The second step is:

Define disruptive innovation and give a broad outline of who a disruptive innovator is.

Definition Of “Disruptive Innovation”

The concept of disruptive innovation was coined by Clayton Christensen in the 1995 book “The Innovator’s Dilemma.”

Disruptive innovation…describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves up market, eventually displacing established competitors.”

Reason To Be Disruptive Innovatorsdisruptive innovation chart

One of the main reasons I’m promoting disruptive innovation as valuable to NE Wisconsin is shown in the chart to the right. The big picture lesson from this disruptive innovation chart is that for sustaining innovations, incumbents nearly always win. NE Wisconsin has very few incumbents in emerging technology sectors or other industry sectors with high growth and high-paying jobs. Therefore, if we want to “win” when competing in those sectors, the region is most likely to be successful through disruptive innovation.

Christensen further clarifies disruptive innovation as:

“…a process whereby a smaller company with fewer resources is able to successfully challenge established incumbent businesses. Specifically, as incumbents focus on improving their products and services for their most demanding (and usually most profitable) customers, they exceed the needs of some segments and ignore the needs of others. Entrants that prove disruptive begin by successfully targeting those overlooked segments, gaining a foothold by delivering more-suitable functionality—frequently at a lower price. Incumbents, chasing higher profitability in more-demanding segments, tend not to respond vigorously. Entrants then move upmarket, delivering the performance that incumbents’ mainstream customers require, while preserving the advantages that drove their early success. When mainstream customers start adopting the entrants’ offerings in volume, disruption has occurred…”

A slightly different view of disruptive innovation is shown in the chart below. This chart illustrates the concept that disrupters pitch their products to the low end, or least profitable part of the market. Disrupters don’t expect to sell their products to established high end customers because the disruptive product is unproven and, by definition, doesn’t perform as well as competing products from the incumbent market leaders.

disruptive innovation chart 2

That’s one of the reasons shipping early and often is an accepted practice for disruptive innovators. Their sometimes quirky products don’t do everything that products from the incumbents do, but the disruptive products are “good enough” for what low end customers need. If a disrupter develops effective customer relationships with those low end customers, those customers will give them valuable feedback for improving the products.

It can be relatively easy to improve the disruptive product because the customers has made it clear exactly what needs to be fixed, so the innovator who listens well doesn’t waste time working on features or problems the customer doesn’t care about. Another reason it’s easy to improve the product is that the relatively low-volume market for the disruptive product means minimal time and money has been spent on cost reductions for high-volume, high-efficiency manufacturing. Making a product change doesn’t require a large capital investment in a low -volume production process.

Incumbents, on the other hand, can’t quickly change their products because of inventories, marketing campaigns, capital investments in mass production equipment, and other issues inherent in established product lines. Additionally, because they’re not going to frequently change the product, the market leaders tend not to solicit or listen to suggestions for short term improvements.

More Thoroughly Understanding Disruptive Innovation

If you want to understand and be involved in disruptive innovation, read Christensen’s 2015 article “What is Disruptive Innovation?,” then read his book “The Innovator’s innovators dilemmaDilemma.” In the article, Christensen says:

“…Despite broad dissemination, the theory’s core concepts have been widely misunderstood and its basic tenets frequently misapplied. Furthermore, essential refinements in the theory over the past 20 years appear to have been overshadowed by the popularity of the initial formulation. As a result, the theory is sometimes criticized for shortcomings that have already been addressed.

…In our experience, too many people who speak of “disruption” have not read a serious book or article on the subject…Many researchers, writers, and consultants use “disruptive innovation” to describe any situation in which an industry is shaken up and previously successful incumbents stumble. But that’s much too broad a usage…If we get sloppy with our labels or fail to integrate insights from subsequent research and experience into the original theory, then managers may end up using the wrong tools for their context, reducing their chances of success…”

Part of Step 2 for connecting disruptive innovators was “give a broad outline of who a disruptive innovator is.” After writing a first draft of who a disruptive innovator is, I decided the broad outline of a disruptive innovator needs more wordsmithing and feedback from a few people before publishing on this blog. I’ll update this post by adding that outline in the next week or two.

Help Catalyze NE Wisconsin Disruptive Innovation

If you live in NE Wisconsin and are involved in disruptive innovation, or if you want to support it or become involved in this type of innovation, contact Bob Waldron at bwaldron (at) gmail [dott] com.

*****

Advertisements

Core Team To Connect NE Wisconsin Disruptive Innovators

Build Core Team

step 1On Friday I detailed my plan for connecting disruptive innovators in NE Wisconsin. Today’s post will elaborate on the first step of that plan:

Recruit a couple more people for the core team connecting NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators.

One of the things I’ve learned working on major, participant-driven, grassroots projects over the past ten years is that there needs to be a well-aligned core team of six to eight people (minimum) if the project is going to have long term success. One person can get the ball rolling and keep it rolling. But if one or a couple people try to provide all the skills and energy needed to launch, grow and maintain momentum for the project, the odds will not be ever in their favor.

colleges and universitiesI’ve recruited one person who tentatively agreed to work on a part of this project which focuses on area colleges and universities. My primary challenge in making the overall project a viable long term effort is finding three or four more NE Wisconsin people who want to put a decent amount of time and effort into the early stages of the project. Those three or four core team members can then help me recruit a couple more, and voilà ⇒ critical mass for the core team! 🙂

Ideal Core Team Members To Recruit

Below are descriptions of people I’m working to recruit for this project’s core team.

  1. Lead person on a recent disruptive innovation.  To bring credibility and legitimacy to this project, the top priority for additional core team members is someone living in NE Wisconsin who was the lead person on a recent disruptive innovation (regardless of where the innovative work was done). If we can’t get a lead person, we should at least recruit someone who worked on a recent major innovation that happened in this region. Recent is a relative term, but the goal is to have someone who was involved in an innovation project during the past five years.
  2. Emerging technology company innovator.  Another NE Wisconsin person who would bring tremendous credibility to the project is someone who works at a company focused on an emerging technology. This could be someone who lives in NE Wisconsin but works remotely, but it would be best if the emerging tech company is located in this region.
  3. Emerging technology specialist.  Some people’s primary job is working with an emerging technology at a company which is not focused on an emerging technology and has not had a recent disruptive innovation. Another person we could use on this project is an emerging technology specialist, someone highly knowledgeable about a tech like 3D printing, robotics, microelectronics, photonics, etc.
  4. College faculty, student or administrator.  Because a high probability source of innovators is colleges / universities, it would be great to have a college innovation rep on the core team. That rep could be a faculty member, student or administrator, but an instructor who deals with innovation topics would be best for several reasons. Whoever the core team college rep is, they should be involved with some aspect of innovation.
  5. Regional investors representative.  Investors can be very helpful to kickstarting entrepreneurial swarming if they’re willing to provide pre-seed stage incentive money to encourage launch of new startups or to invest moderate amounts of money in tech startups and other seed stage companies for minimal amounts of equity. Having an investor representative on the project core team will be helpful not only because of support funding from that investor, but also because the rep can likely build strong relationships between the core team and other investors.
  6. Liaison for major supporters of innovation community.  Another person to recruit for the core team is someone to be the liaison for major supporters in NE Wisconsin. Ideally the liaison will be a supporter or member of a supporter organization. But the core team member could also be someone who has strong relationships with potential supporters in the region. Supporters include both partners and sponsors. Partners are NE Wisconsin organizations which officially endorse the innovation community and encourages or enables members of the organization to participate in that community. Sponsors are organizations or people who make the innovation community activities financially possible with donations of money or in-kind products or services.
  7. Regional mainstream media representative.  Regional media isn’t required for connecting and building the innovation community, but their involvement could be helpful. Positive media coverage will help this project by educating the general public, by making more disruptive innovators aware of the growing community of innovators, by bringing more credibility to the community, and in other ways.
  8. Social media and communications.  A core team lead person for social media is another not-required-but-very-helpful position. Not all disruptive innovators will spend a lot of time on Facebook, Twitter or other social media, but some will. And many bridge connectors who know disruptive innovators will be on social media. Having an effective social media campaign for this project will help general public awareness and will also build awareness in potential supporter organizations.
  9. Website developer.  At some point it will become very important for the innovation community to have a high quality website. In the early days of organizing this project and getting things moving ahead, I will do a free blog website (already on my to-do list). But after we’ve built a reasonable amount of momentum and the project has become a viable long term project, a much better website to facilitate innovator interaction and collaboration will become crucial.
  10. Videographer.  In the world of the internet, digital communications and 21st century marketing and promotion, video production capability is increasingly important. Having a videographer on the core team will be a tremendous asset. If we can’t recruit a videographer, then next best choice would be having a rep from a NE Wisconsin videography company.
  11. Grant writer.  I don’t know of any grants designated specifically for building a region’s community of disruptive innovators. But if a grant writer joins the team, they may know of that type of grant or they may be able to work effectively with grant organizations to get related grants awarded to NE Wisconsin for improving the region’s disruptive innovation and entrepreneurial swarming.
  12. General proponent of disruptive innovation.  If you are not one of the above core member types but are passionate about disruptive innovation, consider getting involved in this project to connect the region’s innovation community.

As the project moves forward and different priorities become apparent for the core team, I’ll update this post to reflect those changes.

If one or more of the above descriptions fits you or someone you know, and you want to help connect and build the NE Wisconsin innovation community, please contact Bob Waldron at bwaldron (at) gmail [dott] com.

*****

Connecting NE Wisconsin Disruptive Innovators

Connecting Disruptive Innovators

The recent posts I’ve written about innovation and entrepreneurism in NE Wisconsin have got me thinking about all the good things and interesting times that could result from a wisconsin red NEwell-connected regional disruptive innovators network. That train of thought led me to write this Friday evening post about actively working on connecting disruptive innovators in the region.

Connecting those disrupters will lead to increased innovation in the region, new worthwhile personal relationships, fun and productive activities, and a plethora of other possibilities. I’m looking forward to the challenge of connecting these like-minded people because it will pay dividends for the region, for the disrupters and for me.

Connection Plan Next Steps

So today’s post is a brief look at my current plan for connecting NE Wisconsin’s disruptive innovators. I’m just getting started, and the plan is sure to change with time, but as of August 5, 2016, my Next Steps are:

  1. Recruit a couple more people for the core team connecting NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators.trough of disillusionment
  2. Define disruptive innovation and give a broad outline of who a disruptive innovator is.
  3. Define where and what “NE Wisconsin” is.
  4. Build a website for NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators.
  5. Do extensive online research to identify as many of the region’s disruptive innovators as possible. Make a list of disrupters and people (bridge contacts) who might know disrupters. Use a Google doc to organize the results of my research and to create a background document about NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators.
  6. While doing above research, also gather and organize information about what’s happening in other regions with TIE communities, disruptive innovation, and entrepreneurial swarming. Also gather info about how these issues impact a region’s economy.
  7. Develop an outline of topics and questions to discuss with the disruptive innovators and people who might know of innovators in NE Wisconsin.
  8. Talk with people who might be disrupters or bridge contacts.
  9. Connect all the people who are interested in being part of the NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators network, as well as the larger NE Wisconsin TIE community (tech, innovators, entrepreneurs).

Three requests for readers of this post:

  1. If you’d like to discuss this NE Wisconsin innovation project, or you know you’d like to help connect the region’s TIE community and disruptive innovators, please contact Bob Waldron at bwaldron (at) gmail [dott] com.
  2. If you’re a tech, innovator, or entrepreneur type person and want to be connected with other people in the NE Wisconsin TIE community (especially if you’re a disruptive innovator!), please contact me.
  3. If you know of any NE Wisconsin tech, innovator, or entrepreneur type people, please let me know who they are. In addition to their names and other details like companies or projects they’re involved with, if you have contact info you can share, that will be fantastic!

Thank You!

*****

Social Capital, Disruptive Innovation, Entrepreneurial Swarming

Short post tonight. I had hoped to write a longer introduction to social capital and its interaction with entrepreneurs and disruptive innovation.

However, after several hours of reading and trying to connect the dots so they create a clear picture, it seems the Polaroid photo is still developing. I don’t yet have the words all lined up to explain how identifying and effectively connecting and developing social capital in NE Wisconsin will enable the region to facilitate entrepreneurial swarming and disruptive innovation.bowling alone

Social capital is defined as “the networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively.” Robert Putnam popularized the term in his book Bowling Alone, published in 2000. One of the issues discussed in the book was the difference between bonding social capital and bridging social capital. The Wikipedia entry for social capital also discusses bonding and bridging types of social capital.

I had a long and interesting discussion today about disruptive innovation, entrepreneurs, and social capital. During our conversation, we developed the vague outlines of an approach to improving disruptive innovation in this region by focusing on the appropriate type of social capital. Over the next couple weeks I will develop, in collusion with a fellow proponent of creative destruction, a proposed action plan to identify NE Wisconsin individuals and organizations social capital 2with high amounts of bridging social capital (as opposed to primarily bonding social capital).

The plan we’re developing will clarify the why and how of connecting with people who have the ability to be disruptive innovators, or who may already be innovating below the radar. After we’re satisfied that the plan clearly presents the basic elements of our vision, we’ll work with the appropriate group of NE Wisconsin people and organizations to refine the plan and identify how to connect with the right resources to successfully kickstart a new level of disruptive innovation in NE Wisconsin. If you’re interested in facilitating this type of activity in our region, keep an eye on this blog.

Now it’s time for me to get back to researching and working on our first draft of the proposal…

*****

MIT Energy Monitoring System & NE Wisconsin Innovation

In a post earlier this week, “MIT Regional Entrepreneurship Accelerator Program,” I said NE Wisconsin tech innovation could benefit greatly from participating in the MIT REAP initiative.

New MIT Energy Monitoring System

A new MIT energy monitoring system for consumers that was in the news this week points to one way NE Wisconsin could work with MIT on disruptive innovation. This system is 10X innovative in estimated cost ($25 – $30 per home) and in design (simple MIT energy sensorinstallation, self-calibrating, OwnYourData IoT philosophy).

“…soon, there could be a much easier way to figure out exactly how much power is being used by every appliance, lighting fixture, and device in your home, with pinpoint accuracy and at low cost…the new MIT system has some key advantages over other approaches. First, it involves no complex installation…the system is designed to be self-calibrating. Second…the sensors can pick up enough detailed information about spikes and patterns in the voltage and current that the system can…tell the difference between every different kind of light, motor, and other device in the home and show exactly which ones go on and off, at what times. Perhaps most significantly, the system is designed so that all of the detailed information stays right inside the user’s own home…

Other groups have attempted to use wireless sensors to pick up the very faint magnetic and electric fields near a wire, but such systems have required a complex alignment process…The MIT team solved the problem by using an array of five sensors, each slightly offset from the others, and a calibration system that tracks the readings from each sensor and figures out which one is positioned to give the strongest signal.

“A bunch of major players have gotten into, and out of, this field,” says Leeb, including giants like Google and Microsoft. But now, he says, the MIT team has solved the key issues and come up with a practical and very powerful system…Once the system is developed into a commercial product, Leeb says, it should cost only about $25 to $30 per home…”

NE Wisconsin Innovating With MIT Technology

If NE Wisconsin participates in REAP, one of my recommendations is to work with MIT on developing niche areas of disruptive tech innovation activity. This new consumer energy monitoring system could fit in one of those niche areas.

The NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators could collaborate with the MIT REAP team and the MIT faculty and students developing relevant new technology. In the case of the energy monitoring system, maybe we could get 50 beta systems (costs covered by NE Wisconsin disruptive innovation supporters) and install them in area homes. We could then work with MIT to fine-tune the systems and maybe develop add-ons, related resource-monitoring devices, or a whole slew of other innovation ideas that might come from Canary Instruments energy monitor 2working on these systems.

I worked on a startup company in northern California that made an energy monitor with similar goals — to measure the electricity being used in a home or smaller living units such as apartments. The competitive advantage of the Canary Instruments monitor was using color feedback to indicate energy usage level, rather than using numbers to show how many units of electrical power are being consumed by all the devices in your home.

The sensors we used to measure electricity usage for the Canary Instruments energy monitors were current transformers, or CTs. The MIT sensors would be easier to install than CTs and are designed to monitor the power differently. It would be fun to use the MIT monitoring system with the Canary Instruments consumer feedback approach.Nexi energy monitor

[Since I left the startup, they’ve developed a new consumer feedback interface called Nexi, still using the color feedback concept, but with a different form factor. I’m not sure which style I like better. Would have to use both of them to see which one appealed most to me over a period of weeks or months.]

The new MIT energy monitoring system is only one of many thousands of disruptive tech innovations being worked on right now at MIT. I guarantee you I could easily find ten or twenty other MIT research projects that could lead to worthwhile NE Wisconsin niche disruptive innovation projects…

*****

The Need For A NE Wisconsin Reboot (Take 2)

Reboot (Take 1) was presented in “Reboot, Part 1: NE Wisconsin 3.0.” Today’s post takes a slightly different approach in explaining why I think a Reboot is needed.

Technology Is Relevant

As technology becomes more relevant to disruptive innovation, the national economy, and the global economy, NE Wisconsin becomes less relevant to disruptive innovation, the national economy, and the global economy. That trend is shown in the chart below.

Reboot, NE Wisc chart

Factors For Thriving Regional Disruptive Innovation

Nobody has yet figured out a repeatable formula for building a region with fast adoption of emerging technologies, a high level of disruptive innovation, and ongoing creation of new high-paying jobs. But some of the factors which appear to help a region’s disruptive innovation emerge and continue to grow in impact are:

  • Tech industry clusters and ecosystems.entrepreneurship factors
  • Research universities and exemplary education systems.
  • Risk-tolerant regional culture.
  • Unique regional resources and competitive advantages.
  • Strong network of highly successful entrepreneurs.
  • Favorable government policies and regulations.
  • High population density and many creatives.
  • Diverse population, including motivated and educated 1st-gen American immigrants.
  • Uniquely attractive weather, geography and terrain.

Disruptive Innovation Rating For NE Wisconsin

The above list of factors favorable for thriving tech entrepreneurism and disruptive innovation is not definitive or complete, but these are relevant and important issues. Therefore, it seems useful and instructive to look at NE Wisconsin and do an informal rating for the region on each factor.

  1. Tech industry clusters and ecosystems. NE Wisconsin does not have any tech industry clusters or significant ecosystems. Historically strong industries are paper and forest products, dairy, agriculture, and traditional heavy manufacturing. Technology in NE Wisconsin primarily means IT and MIS, rather than CS, coders, developers, founders and emerging technologies such as nanotech, photonics, microelectronics, robotics, 3D printing or wearable computing.
  2. Research universities and exemplary education systems. NE Wisconsin does not have any major tech research universities. The overall performance of the region’s education system is good, but there are few if any exemplary schools or school districts that attract families with high potential youth to relocate to their area because of educational opportunities. Nor do the school systems have extensive collaboration with the NE Wisconsin TIE community (Tech, Innovators, Entrepreneurs). Contrast that with Joseph Schumpeter’s education* and the opinion of GE’s CIO, Jim Fowler**.
  3. Risk-tolerant regional culture. NE Wisconsin has a risk-averse culture. Launching a startup here that does not give you an income equal to or greater than a good-paying “normal” job or having to shut down your startup means you failed, rather than meaning you may have learned how to do better on the next startup. Most potential investors for startups in the region want a guaranteed return that is higher than investing in the stock market or other traditional investment options. They are not interested in investing in startups if only two or three out of ten will be successful. And they’re highly unlikely to invest in pre-seed stage startups as part of a serious effort to improve the entrepreneurial culture of the region or to kickstart entrepreneurial swarming.
  4. Unique regional resources and competitive advantages. NE Wisconsin has only two truly unique regional resources which are known nationally and globally — the Green Bay Packers and the Experimental Aircraft Association. Neither of these are a compelling source of regional disruptive innovation or tech entrepreneurism, although they do present intriguing opportunities that I’ll discuss in a future post.
  5. Strong network of highly successful tech entrepreneurs. NE Wisconsin does not have a strong network of highly successful tech entrepreneurs (as far as I know) who are actively working to expand the tech entrepreneur community and improve the startup communities brad feldregion’s culture. I’m not even aware of very many highly successful tech entrepreneurs in NE Wisconsin. It’s possible such a network exists, and my lack of knowledge about it is due to me not being a highly successful tech entrepreneur and not being seen as useful to the people in that network. And there may be many highly successful tech entrepreneurs in the region, but they just prefer to stay under the radar. Brad Feld of Foundry Group views a strong network of entrepreneurs who lead programs to be the key to building a highly entrepreneurial region.
  6. Favorable government policies and regulations. Wisconsin and NE Wisconsin government policies and regulations are generally not strongly supportive of disruptive innovation and tech entrepreneurship.
  7. High population density, many creatives. NE Wisconsin does not have a high population density, even in its larger cities. The region is not an immigration destination for creatives and does not have a widely connected community of creatives or wide-based regional support for creatives.
  8. Diverse population. NE Wisconsin’s population is not highly diverse. And the population of the region’s TIE community is even less diverse, being mostly white and male.
  9. Uniquely attractive weather, geography and terrain. NE Wisconsin does not have any uniquely attractive weather, geography or terrain. It gets very cold in the winter, but there is not enough snow to build a strong snowsports industry. The region does not have mountains or ocean beaches, and it doesn’t have any other spectacular geography that might draw entrepreneurs, creatives or other potential disruptive innovators.

If you add up all of NE Wisconsin’s factors favorable for disruptive innovation, you won’t get a large number. We don’t have critical mass and aren’t at a tipping point for a significant increase in disruptive innovation. That doesn’t mean we can’t have disruptive innovation–it just means we have to approach the topic differently than other regions.Prophet of Innovation

*   “…[Schumpeter’s mother] wanted an even larger stage for her talents and her son’s…she arranged for the new family to move to Vienna…a far cry from Graz, or even Triesch. In Vienna she entered [Schumpeter] in a renowned preparatory school…The Theresianum was one of the best and most demanding schools of its kind…His family had leased an entire floor of one of the luxurious apartments situated near the famous Ringstrasse…Schumpeter’s daily walks took him past places steeped in history, and where history was still being made…He did this from the ages of ten to twenty-three…The Theresianum required far more rigorous work than most high schools do today…As at high schools everywhere, then and now, many students tried to idle their way through, doing as little work as possible. But Schumpeter–playful and outgoing as he was–had the true intellectual’s curiosity about the world…For a diligent student like Schumpeter, an education at the Theresianum followed by a degree at the University of Vienna conferred priceless intellectual assets…Both the Theresianum and the University of Vienna emphasized what today would be called “networking.”…In the early stages of his career, Schumpeter was to discover that he too needed noble patronage…”

**   “…Kids are the ultimate beta testers…There is a lot of talk about the lack Jim Fowlerof STEM education in America, and we absolutely have to make a formal, concerted effort to get more hard science into our classrooms. But we also shouldn’t overlook the many things outside the classroom that might kick off an active, lifelong interest in technology…that engage young people with technology in ways that draw on their natural independence and creativity…”

Realistic Expectations For Next 20 Years

With the programs and activities currently in place and likely to develop in NE Wisconsin, realistic expectations for technology, disruptive innovation, and entrepreneurism in this region over the next 20 years are:

  1. Technology, innovation and entrepreneurism will continue to improve in NE Wisconsin, but at a slower pace than on the West Coast, the East Coast, and in many other regions not on either coast. Examples of non-coast regions where innovation is ne wiscimproving faster than NE Wisconsin are Madison, Milwaukee, Chicago, Minneapolis, Austin, Kansas City, Chattanooga, Ann Arbor, Champaign, Fort Collins, and Provo.
  2. Very few scalable tech startups will launch in this region and very few successful ones will stay in NE Wisconsin as they grow.
  3. Minimal and non-coordinated support for technology, disruptive innovation and tech entrepreneurism will be provided by NE Wisconsin corporations, influential individuals, investors, regional governments, or state government.
  4. There will be minimal NE Wisconsin participation or notable achievements in emerging technologies. There will be few NE Wisconsin ventures leveraging emerging technologies for competitive advantage.
  5. There will be minimal disruptive innovations developed in NE Wisconsin. Few NE Wisconsin companies will effectively leverage disruptive innovations for competitive advantage.
  6. The NE Wisconsin TIE community will continue to not be widely and deeply connected, resulting in infrequent opportunities for like-minded people to interact, discuss, collaborate, or cofound startups. The lack of wide and deep connections also results in much less disruptive innovation and hinders the entrepreneurial swarming necessary for creative destruction.
  7. Most people, especially young people, who passionately want to participate in disruptive innovation will move from NE Wisconsin to another region more supportive of disruptive innovation.

Bottom Line ⇒ NE Wisconsin gradually improves but continues to fall behind other regions.

These expectations might seem overly harsh. Most people in NE Wisconsin do not care about disruptive innovation. Nearly all people in the region who do care about innovation will disagree with this post and point to what they see as examples of improvement and disruptive innovation. Or they will say that this region doesn’t need disruptive innovation to have the best possible regional economy, one that is sustainable and resilient and leads to a bright future for our children and for their children. I respectfully disagree and say significant changes are needed to achieve the regional economy and brighter future we want.next steps

The Next Step for Reboot is to connect people interested in disruptive innovation and a thriving, resilient, sustainable regional economy and have the conversations needed to develop a plan for change.

——————-

If you know of examples of disruptive innovation in NE Wisconsin, please send information and links to Bob Waldron at bwaldron (at) gmail [dott] com.

If you are interested in discussing and working on disruptive innovation, contact me.

If you know of NE Wisconsin people potentially interested discussing and working on disruptive innovation, please connect them with me, or send me info about them.

*****

MIT Regional Entrepreneurship Accelerator Program

What Is MIT REAP?

While reading various online and offline resources about disruptive innovation, I came across the Regional Entrepreneurship Acceleration Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT REAP).

According to their website:MIT REAP

The MIT REAP is a global initiative designed to help regions accelerate economic growth & social progress through innovation-driven entrepreneurship (IDE) built upon a region’s unique history, capacity and comparative advantage. Partner regions form stakeholder teams and commit to a two-year learning engagement working with MIT faculty and the broader REAP community through a series of action-learning activities to assess, build and implement a custom regional strategy for enhancing IDE ecosystems.

MIT REAP admits 8-10 partner regions annually to participate in the two-year engagement. Each partner region has a team comprised of 5-7 highly driven and influential regional members and is headed by a regional champion. All 5 major stakeholder groups are represented in an MIT REAP team: government, corporate, academia, risk capital, and the entrepreneurial community.

MIT REAP involves four action-learning cycles over a two-year period. These cycles involve highly interactive workshops every 6 months, which are interspersed by action phases:

(1) A typical workshop is 2.5 days and consists of lecture & discussion, case study analysis, ecosystem engagement tours, programmatic deep dives, group work report-outs, and preparation for action phases. 2 workshops are hosted at MIT and 2 workshops are hosted by selected partner regions.

(2) Action phases are active time between workshops where teams return home to deepen analysis, validate assumptions with a broad network, and implement new programs and policies.

Why Consider MIT REAP For NE Wisconsin

MIT campusI’ve interacted quite a bit over the last ten years with the MIT Club of Wisconsin (MIT alumni who live in Wisconsin). They are a fantastic bunch of people, smartest bunch of interesting geeks I ever met. I haven’t had the opportunity to visit MIT yet, but hope to one day.

If I could chose one university to work with on a wide variety of technology issues, MIT would be my choice. MIT is considered the best technology university in the USA, and is considered by some to be the best in the world. It was the source of many innovations in computer science, and an almost endless list of new technologies have come from, and keep coming from, MIT.

StanfordIf I could chose one university to work with on a wide variety of entrepreneurship issues, Stanford would be my choice. Stanford University has a better reputation than MIT in terms of tech entrepreneurship and being the source of highly-scalable startups. But MIT has also been the starting point for many startups and tech entrepreneurs.

In terms of which of the two would be my top choice for working with NE Wisconsin to leverage emerging technologies, disruptive innovation and entrepreneurial swarming, I would have to pick MIT. They definitely have the edge on emerging tech, they’re definitely behind on entrepreneurial swarming, and they seem slightly behind on disruptive innovation.

But the reason I’d choose MIT is because their culture is probably closer to that of NE Wisconsin than Stanford is. Even though Stanford would probably have better suggestions for our region for disruptive innovations and entrepreneurial swarming, those suggestions would be based on what’s happening in California and other tech hotspots around the world. Those suggestions might be actionable in five or ten years in NE Wisconsin, but not in 2016 or 2017. I think it would be too challenging for Stanford, based on what they know and where they see things going over the next ten years, to figure out innovation improvement recommendations that are appropriate for NE Wisconsin.

wisconsin red NEI think MIT’s recommendations would be a lot more in line with how the companies, universities, government, and investors in this region think. Unfortunately, NE Wisconsin is not ready for Stanford recommendations.

In addition to our area being able to act more effectively on MIT’s recommendations, I think MIT can help NE Wisconsin develop some awesome niche emerging technology specialties. If we can have a few disruptive innovation wins in niche areas, that gives us a base to launch more scalable tech startups, and that will be the beginning of entrepreneurial swarming.

Questions About MIT REAP And Similar Programs

Even if MIT was willing to accept NE Wisconsin into their program (no guarantees about that), there are lots of questions about the MIT REAP opportunity.

  • questionsWho would the region’s representatives be on the MIT REAP team of 5 – 7 members? I’ve got a list of the people I would put on the team.
  • Who would pay for the MIT REAP team’s expenses (MIT fees, travel, lodging, etc)?
  • Why would the MIT REAP improve the region’s tech entrepreneurship and disruptive innovation more than the current NE Wisconsin programs, people, and organizations will without MIT?
  • What are the MIT REAP deliverables or realistic expectations for NE Wisconsin at the end of the two year program?
  • Are there other programs outside NE Wisconsin for improving a region’s disruptive innovation and tech entrepreneurship, and might one of those be better than MIT’s and better than our homegrown bootstrapping efforts?

——————–

PS — Iceland is one of the regions that will be in the next MIT REAP class starting in October 2016. That would be soooooo cool to be in the program and get to know the people from Iceland, as well as all the other teams (I don’t know what other regions will be in the Fall 2016 class). And I’m betting that one of the 2.5 day workshops hosted by partner regions will be done in Reykjavik! 🙂

*****

Day-After-Report: Personal Digital Home Meetup, July 30

Future Posts For PDH Will Be On DHMN Civic Hacks Blog, Not On Events Wrangling

tl;dr — Three of us met and discussed the Personal Digital Home project for 3 hours on July 30. We decided:

[If you’re not familiar with the Personal Digital Home project, it is “the starting point for your digital life.“ The PDH concept is essentially One Site To Rule Them All, your data storage shed, control panel and cyberspace digital presence. A PDH website is intended to let you Own Your Data, give you more control your presence in the metaverse, and make you more effective at interacting with all things digital. Two other projects closely related to PDH are IndieWeb and The Decentralized Web initiative.]

July 30 Meetup Summary

Three NE Wisconsin TIME community members met on July 30, 2016, from 1 – 4 PM CDT at Tom’s Drive In on Westhill Boulevard in Appleton, Wisconsin, USA, to discuss and work on the Personal Digital Home (PDH) project. This post is an overview of the July 30 meeting.

I had proposed an agenda for this meetup, but we pretty much ignored it. This was Chris’ first exposure to PDH, so Mike kicked off the meeting by explaining to Chris what Mike’s understanding and vision of the project is. Unfortunately, I can’t repeat here what Mike said, so for now only Chris and I got the benefit of how Mike sees PDH.

[At the next PDH meetup, I’m going to record Mike (and others if they’re ok with that) when they paint a picture of what PDH means to them. Then I’ll put that in cyber-writing, and we can refine the descriptions. That will help us see what the commonalities are between people working on the project and how each one aligns with the big picture I’m working to solidify for PDH.]

To me, Mike’s description of PDH sounded pretty close to the IndieWeb project, with a strong emphasis on OYD (Own Your Data) and POSSE (Publish (on your) Own Site, Syndicate Elsewhere). So I expanded on what Mike said and explained that PDH is intended to help people better manage all their digital “stuff” online and offline now and twenty years from now when people’s lives will be even more digital than they are now. That means it will include things like:

  • Your own website (using a URL or domain name you registered for yourself ).
  • The POSSE content you create, e.g. for Twitter, Facebook, other social media, blog posts, Google Docs, photos, etc.
  • A reliable, secure, and private backup system for all the digital data you don’t want to lose.
  • A portfolio or repository for all your education, learning, knowledge, and expertise.
  • An umbrella site for all your ventures, side gigs and residual income streams.
  • Whatever other digital components your life has (or pointers to those components if they are under your control elsewhere).

Think about your digital and online life ten or twenty years ago. Then think about how much more digital, cellular and internet-connected you are today.

NOWextrapolate forward twenty years. The concept of PDH is to be the digital interface you’ll want to have twenty years from now, when even more of your life is locally-networked and internet-connected via cellular, WiFi, and other wireless or wired protocols, blending reality, augmented reality, virtual reality, holography, wearable computing, robotics, and other digital-life tools that haven’t been imagined yet.

After Mike and I told Chris how we see PDH, he asked a few questions, then we started talking about different components of PDH and how the overall concept might function. That was sort of Talking Point 1 on my agenda, or at least part of it. Mike and Chris didn’t have an interest in talking about or working on secure and reliable backup systems for people’s current digital data and lives, so I’ll have to connect with someone else if PDH is going to create a reliable, secure and private backup system people can build in upcoming months.

Toward the end of the meeting, we talked a bit about Next Steps for PDH. All in all, it was an excellent meeting, and I feel we made good progress. I’m looking forward to working on PDH over the next few weeks and meeting up again in person in a few weeks.

PDH Communications

We agreed that, for now, most of our communications will happen via the NE Wisconsin Slack team in the #dhmncivichacks channel.

I’ve been publishing posts about the PDH project on the Events Wrangling blog, but will move those to the DHMN Civic Hacks blog since we’re putting it under the DHMN (Distributed Hacker/Maker Network) umbrella, at least as a starting point. I’ll leave a pointer on the Events Wrangling blog telling people interested in PDH to look at DHMN Civic Hacks.

For communicating and collaborating regarding software, firmware, hardware, services, and project design, we’ll use GitHub as a central point for now. I’ll probably do some work on a GitHub wiki. The IndieWeb project appears to use a MediaWiki wiki as their central organizing hub, with two freenode irc channels for their discussions (you can also connect via Slack).

We also agreed that the success of PDH is dependent on it being a hybrid project — some online interaction and some in-person, some asynchronous communication and some synchronous. The majority of the work will be done in a distributed fashion with online collaboration and communication. The distributed functionality will enable the project to build a global team if we can develop a good project base and effectively communicate compelling reasons to participate in the project.

But we’ll also have periodic in-person meetups, especially for recruiting new members to the project, for working together on hardware and other physical aspects of PDH, and for FUN and general relationship building. Plus maybe some Stuc’s pizza and Great White or Moon Man beer…

Security And Privacy

Security and privacy are critical to PDH being a viable concept and a usable digital tool. A couple NE Wisconsin infosec people expressed interest in the project, and I hope to have them at one or more of our upcoming meetings. My approach to PDH is that it will only be reliably secure and private if we have security people involved right at the beginning. It makes no sense at all to build PDH with only casual and incomplete or incorrect security measures, then expect to bolt on true security as an intermediate or last step. Won’t work.

We also discussed how security and convenience are, to a certain extent, on opposite ends of a spectrum. What I’d like to discuss with the security specialists is the concept of designing for the most secure system possible at three different levels of convenience.

  1. Convenience Level 1 — very convenient; preferred by 90%+ of the people who are online.
  2. Convenience Level 2 — medium convenience, preferred by tech people who want a middling amount of convenience with as much security as possible at that convenience level; 3 – 9% of people who are online.
  3. Convenience Level 3 — only use Tor or similarly-secure browser, use auto-obfuscation tools, encrypt all email and other communications if available, etc; 0.01 – 1.0% of people who are online.

Gravatar / IIRW / Pluggable Software Components

Mike’s goal is to figure out and build some type of elemental software chunk that performs along the lines of Gravatar, which is, I think, a POSSE widget. I’m not a coder, so I’m sure I’m mangling terminology. Mike can unmangle this paragraph to explain what his first PDH goal is. Or even better, he can write a separate post for DHMN Civic Hacks or a description for GitHub to describe what he’d like to initially work on for PDH.

We talked about creating modular pluggable software components for PDH, maybe along the lines of plugins for WordPress or extensions for the Chrome browser.

In addition to the Gravatar analogy, Mike used the example of the “Is it recycling week?” (IIRW) Android app civic hack he spearheaded. He started out by writing the AppletonAPI, based on some things he learned from a Madison civic hacker. Then he wrote the IIRW app. Along the way, another Mike got plugged into the civic API and recycling civic hack, and he developed a civic API discovery service with standard contracts, then he wrote a Greenville API. Chris and Ross also jumped in building a web interface for the recycling information, an Outagamie county API and a Pebble Watch app.

So Mike wants to figure out a small but useful component or building block of PDH that he and others can improve, build off of, and work toward the big picture of a fully functional PDH.

IPFS

Chris is starting on PDH by figuring out whether IPFS can be a useful component or building block for the project. IPFS is the acronym for InterPlanetary File System. (TechCrunch article about it for background)

As with Mike and the Gravatar / IIRW starting goal, I’ll let Chris write a paragraph to explain how or why he wants to build IPFS into the PDH. Or he can write a post instead of a paragraph! 🙂

Raspberry Pi 3 Hdwe Stack / AWS Virtual Stack

Raspberry Pi 3 was discussed as a possible hardware first demonstration platform for PDH.

I see the PDH development process as a dual-focus iterative process.

One focus is the design of the system. We don’t know exactly what PDH should look like yet, because we’re just starting to figure out what we want it to do. So part of the time we’ll be thinking about, researching and discussing what PDH should do, and what components will enable it to do those things. We’ll keep working on the design until we get to a v.0.1 design. Then we’ll iterate on that design and come up with the next incremental version.

Meanwhile, the other focus of the PDH project is building the modular pluggable components we think we want to use. Some of those components will be hardware, some will be software, some might be firmware or services. But we will be building things, not just discussing and designing them. What we learn from building and using those components will inform the next iteration of design, which will then inform the next iteration of build.

Based on what we discussed on July 30, Mike and Chris think a Raspberry Pi 3 might be an interesting starting point for PDH hardware. The three of us will research and think about that more and if, after the next PDH meetup, it still looks like the Pi 3 is a good hardware starting point, I’ll get a Pi 3 and start on the hardware build cycle.

Mike and Chris also mentioned the possibility of a minimal hardware instance of PDH which would likely use AWS, so one of them may start defining and developing that in parallel with the Pi 3 or other hardware-focused solution.

Other General Discussion

Since I didn’t record the meeting or take extensive notes, I’ll just include bullet points for the rest of the discussion we had on July 30. Mike or Chris can expand on these if they want, and I’ll update the post with their verbiage. Or the bullet points below can just stand as reminders to the three of us, as well as potential starting points for questions from others who are interested in PDH.

  • Blockchain; contracts for all components — Mike P can explain to Mike R his view on those being part of PDH
  • Make Something People Want
    • Mike’s example of group of students who are friends coming up with new uses for Minecraft and Pi
    • Josh G can help by giving input re what students he works with might want
  • Pluggable components for both software and hardware
  • Consumer WiFi router ⇒ consumer server
    • Chromebook update and near-zero maintenance model ⇒ consumer server
  • Minimum personally-owned hardware is encryption key (Mike)
  • Chrome profile (Mike)
  • ownCloud (Chris)
  • Sandstorm (Bob)
  • Folding At Home (Mike)
  • HTML local storage (Mike)
  • GitHub / Git (Mike)

Next PDH Meetup

The next PDH in-person meetup will be a Monday night — either August 15, 22, or 29. I will contact a few people this week to see which of those three work best, then I’ll publish a post and make a whole bunch of people aware of the date for the next meetup. PDH will be the main topic for Coder Cooperative (CC) on the Monday we select. CC runs from 7-9 PM at the Appleton Makerspace, but I’ll be there at 6 PM if a Makerspace member will have the door open by 6 — I’ll highlight in the pre-meetup post whether to come at 6 if you want to talk about PDH before the 7 PM official start time.

Ten people were interested in PDH and the July 30 meetup, but due to typical busy summer weekend schedules only three could make it. So I’m looking forward to having somewhere between five and fifteen people talking about and working on PDH in a couple weeks! 🙂

Future Posts For PDH Will Be On DHMN Civic Hacks Blog, Not On Events Wrangling

——————–

[contact Bob Waldron at bwaldron (at) gmail {dott} com if you have questions about PDH]

*****

Personal Digital Home Meetup, July 30, Appleton, Wisconsin

Tom's Drive InThe second meetup to work on the Personal Digital Home (PDH) project is tomorrow, Saturday, July 30, 2016, at Tom’s Drive In, 501 N Westhill Blvd, Appleton, Wisconsin, USA.

We’ll meet from 1 – 4 PM in the upstairs area at Tom’s — it’s a little bit quieter up there and we can put a couple tables together.

As mentioned in an earlier post, this meetup will be a discussion-work session. If interested in more PDH background, see “IndieWeb and PDH: Talking Points For Coder Cooperative June 20 Meetup.” My proposed agenda for the second meetup has three main items, but I’m open to talking about or working on other aspects of PDH. The three tentative talking points are:

  1. Refine definition of PDH.
  2. Develop reliable backup system.
  3. Work on alpha version of WordPress PDH.

Here’s an expanded version of what we’ll talk about to start the work session, and we’ll see what happens from there.

  • Refine definition of PDH
    • Functional description — what will it do
    • Component description — what parts we think are needed for above functions
    • Hardware, software, services
  • Develop, document, and build reliable backup system
    • Learn from recent Google account deactivation and take action
    • Secure and private
    • Onsite and offsite
    • Maximum automation, minimum user responsibilitiesWordPress Personal Digital Home, tagline
    • Long term plan (50-year?)
  • Work on alpha version of WordPress PDH
    • IndieWeb has done a lot of work on using a WordPress approach for the Decentralized Web
    • WordPress powers 25%+ sites on the web; immediate traction for PDH
    • Philosophy of Automattic and Matt Mullenweg appear to align well with PDH
    • Quicker start for alpha version because we’re not building from scratch

A number of people expressed interest in learning more about the PDH project and maybe working on it, but they had previous commitments for July 30. To accommodate busy summer weekends, we’ll probably schedule another meeting for a weeknight in a couple weeks.

Hope to see you at Tom’s tomorrow!

Tom's Drive In, Google Maps

Tom’s Drive In, Westhill Blvd, by Woodman’s (see also Google Maps link on address above)

*****

Reboot, Part 1: NE Wisconsin 3.0

Regional Economic Reboot

innovators dilemmaThis post is the first of a series about Reboot, an initiative to improve the regional economy of NE Wisconsin.

I love technology, especially emerging technologies. I’m intrigued by the way emerging technologies cause disruptive innovation (Clayton Christensen), or vice versa. And I’m a true believer in the capability of emerging technology and its innovations to cause entrepreneurial swarming and creative destruction (Joseph Schumpeter).

Small problem, though. I currently live in NE Wisconsin. A region far removed from the centers of emerging technologies, disruptive innovation, creative destruction, and entrepreneurial swarming.

here comes everybody, clay shirkyHowever, I believe in the organizing power of the internet (Clay Shirky). Although the mostly-non-tech regional economy, low population density, and conservative culture of NE Wisconsin do not combine to create a real-world critical mass of disruptive innovators, I do know those disrupters are out there. So what we need to do is connect those disruptive innovators, build a team of future-focused supporter organizations, and create a virtual critical mass of like-minded and complementary-minded people.

Then, voilà! Let the fun, and a regional economic reboot, begin…

Where NE Wisconsin Reboot Came From

NE Wisconsin’s “New North” regional economic initiative was launched a couple years after the 21st century became a reality. I’m considering the New North launch to be NE Wisconsin 2.0.

10X innovationWhat I’m proposing is to take a brand new look at disruptive innovation and creative destruction as applied to this region. The existing programs for innovations, entrepreneurs and technology can continue, but let’s incorporate a new approach that focuses on disruptive innovation and startups with goals of delivering 10 – 20X improvement rather than 10 – 20% improvement.

Incorporating that new approach will be NE Wisconsin 3.0.

The “Reboot” title for this initiative to improve the region’s economy, innovation and entrepreneurism comes from the procedure of rebooting a personal computer when you make major changes on it, or when the computer isn’t working exactly the way it should.

From my perspective, NE Wisconsin would benefit from making major changes, sort of a reboot. Those benefits were spelled out in my earlier post “TIME Community Events: Benefits Of A Regional TIME Community.” Read that post for more details, but the benefit bullet points are:

  • Source of potential employees.benefits
  • Increased job creation in your region.
  • Increased retention and immigration of TIME people (Tech, Innovators, Makers, Entrepreneurs).
  • Building the culture for a resilient and sustainable regional economy.
  • Opportunities to invest in disruptive innovation and startups.

The Reboot concept started out as a personal project to connect with a few people in NE Wisconsin who are highly interested in working on disruptive innovation. Before I spent most of 2014 working on a startup in northern California, we had several years of biweekly coffee shop meetups in NE Wisconsin called the Friday Disrupters. I decided to work on connecting another group of disrupters, but a slightly larger one with more focus on driving change in the region. As I worked on connecting that disruptive innovation network, there was a need to answer three questions.

  1. Who would be good people to have in a network of NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators?
  2. What would be the goals of a small network of NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators?
  3. What would be the benefits of a network of disruptive innovators (to the innovators and to their region)?

Those three questions sequentially led me to think about the following increasingly larger regional networks.

ne wisc

NE Wisconsin

  • 12 – 20 people. I began working on connecting a network of 12 – 20 disruptive innovators who live in NE Wisconsin.
  • 500 – 5000 people. Discussions about a small network of disruptive innovators highlighted the value of connecting 500 – 5000 NE Wisconsin TIE people (Tech, Innovators, Entrepreneurs).
  • 8000 people. Thinking about the TIE network led me consider the value connecting a larger network (~ 8000 people) who are committed to actively improving the NE Wisconsin entrepreneurial and innovation culture; not just TIE people.
  • 12,000 people. One of the benefits of improving a region’s entrepreneurial and innovation culture is improvement of the regional economy. That larger goal of regional economic improvement would add more people to the group working on entrepreneurial culture — with a resulting objective of connecting 1% of the region’s 1.2 million residents.

The Reboot initiative will start out with a small group of committed people but is intended to lead to much bigger things. Sound like a challenge? As Margaret Meade said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Long Term Commitment: 50 Years

After a small group of committed people is connected, the first step on the Journey of 10,000 miles to an improved regional economy is reaching a consensus that the Reboot partners and sponsors 2initiative will establish realistic expectations rather than over-promising when recruiting program partners and sponsors.

It’s essential for supporters of Reboot to agree that achievable short and medium term goals are worth the budgeted resources. If there are questions about that, a conversation is needed about why improvement will only happen if there is long term commitment. If that long term vision and commitment are missing, there is no point in launching Reboot. Without that supporter commitment, the smaller group of disruptive innovators should just focus on a more limited vision of enabling 10 – 20X improvements in projects in which they are direct participants.

When I say long term vision, I’m referring to 50 years, not 5 years. Stretch objectives are helpful. Optimism and a desire to change the world, or at least the region, are good attributes. But Silicon Valley didn’t spring up in the 70s, 80s or 90s, much less in the past 50 yearsfive or ten years. MIT and Stanford didn’t become world-leading engines of innovation in ten or twenty years.

No matter what potential supporters for the Reboot initiative want to hear or want to have happen, it will take many years to achieve the goal of a big improvement in the region’s innovation, entrepreneurism and economy. The “Start-Up New York” entrepreneurism program was just launched in 2013, but political opponents are already campaigning to end the program because they say it hasn’t created enough new jobs in its first three years. Other entrepreneur and economic accelerator programs have suffered similar fates because they created unrealistic expectations or did not have long term commitment from supporters.

Realistic expectations. Long term vision and commitment. Table stakes.

Seven Step Reboot Plan

In the expectation that three key objectives will be achieved, a seven step Reboot plan has been developed. The three key objectives are:

  1. A small group of thoughtful, committed NE Wisconsin disruptive innovators is connected.
  2. The disruptive innovators group reaches consensus on realistic expectations for the Reboot initiative.
  3. Reboot partners and sponsors with long term vision and commitment are recruited.

seven step planThe seven steps for the Reboot program are listed below. This is a draft blueprint, v.0.1, intended to be talking points for discussion after the disruptive innovators are connected. The Reboot v.1.0 proposal that is used for recruiting partners and sponsors will be developed by the disruptive innovators group. The Reboot v.2.0 that is funded and launched will be based on customer feedback using the Lean Startup methodology. Reboot’s seven steps are:

  1. Connect the TIE community (Tech, Innovators, Entrepreneurs).
  2. Build effective communications and events system for TIE community.NE Wisc Reboot Roads, red, green
  3. TIE community facilitate disruptive innovation; develop program for launching disruptive innovation startups.
  4. Improve NE Wisconsin 3.0 main roads to 4 lane minimum (see map).
  5. Develop and implement plan for Top 5% schools.
  6. Expand TIE community into a 21st century regional economy network.
  7. Develop and expand culture-building regional events.

I’ve seen and heard NE Wisconsin people talking about technology, innovation, entrepreneurism, and change for more than twenty years. People in NE Wisconsin are working on technology, innovation, and entrepreneurism. And change is happening. But…

While NE Wisconsin is moving ahead and improving its regional technology and innovation, other regions are moving ahead faster. And they were ahead to begin with. I don’t think NE Wisconsin isn’t catching up to them. I think it’s falling further behind.

“Reboot, Part 2” will take a look at Next Steps and a recommendation for Reboot discussion events in cities around NE Wisconsin…

*****